Flag burning
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:05:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Flag burning
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Flag burning  (Read 7296 times)
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2006, 02:16:47 AM »

I always believed that I would be able to teach my children that they were lucky to live in a great and wonderful country where they could express their opinions without fear of retribution.  Coming within one vote of losing that is terribly unnerving.

And make no mistake about it, this Amendment would effectively end free speech in America.  Once you start saying that you only have the right to express your opinion if your opinion is not objectionable you have abandoned the central principle behind free speech and gutted the First Amendment.

We are the greatest country on Earth.  But we are not great because we have the best flag, as aesthetically pleasing as the stars and stripes may be.  We are great because we are free, and because our freedoms are protected in our founding documents and cannot be abridged.  To use these founding documents as a political plaything and wantonly erode our basic rights is intolerable.

I could not have said it better myself.

Thank you, as you can tell I feel quite strongly about this vote.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2006, 02:39:04 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://suvcw.org/flag.htm
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2006, 02:50:52 AM »

I always believed that I would be able to teach my children that they were lucky to live in a great and wonderful country where they could express their opinions without fear of retribution.  Coming within one vote of losing that is terribly unnerving.

And make no mistake about it, this Amendment would effectively end free speech in America.  Once you start saying that you only have the right to express your opinion if your opinion is not objectionable you have abandoned the central principle behind free speech and gutted the First Amendment.

We are the greatest country on Earth.  But we are not great because we have the best flag, as aesthetically pleasing as the stars and stripes may be.  We are great because we are free, and because our freedoms are protected in our founding documents and cannot be abridged.  To use these founding documents as a political plaything and wantonly erode our basic rights is intolerable.

While I have mostly been dealing with practical arguements (and I will answer MUDO tomorrow) I agree with John 100%.  Using any national symbol as something that is somehow beyond free speech and freedom of expression is nothing short of fascism.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2006, 02:57:15 AM »

I always believed that I would be able to teach my children that they were lucky to live in a great and wonderful country where they could express their opinions without fear of retribution.  Coming within one vote of losing that is terribly unnerving.

And make no mistake about it, this Amendment would effectively end free speech in America.  Once you start saying that you only have the right to express your opinion if your opinion is not objectionable you have abandoned the central principle behind free speech and gutted the First Amendment.

We are the greatest country on Earth.  But we are not great because we have the best flag, as aesthetically pleasing as the stars and stripes may be.  We are great because we are free, and because our freedoms are protected in our founding documents and cannot be abridged.  To use these founding documents as a political plaything and wantonly erode our basic rights is intolerable.

Very Very well said. As was Super Soulty's comments. I strongly disagree with those who believe flag burning should be illegal, (for pretty much exactly the reasons both you, soulty and some others have brought up) but I can understand to a point where they are coming from.  However, we have to call this for what it was.  This was not about protecting the flag.  This was about making a mockery of the Constitution soley for political purposes, and that is truly disgusting.  Even some of those who believe we should make it illegal see this for what it was and are disgusted by it.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2006, 03:00:39 AM »

Somewhere around half of all Constitutional amendments grant more rights. Some are neutral. This amendment would have been the only active amendment taking away rights. The other such amendment, the 18th, was repealed by the 21st.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2006, 07:06:19 AM »

The First Amendment protects cross burning as well as flag burning.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2006, 08:14:10 AM »

The First Amendment protects cross burning as well as flag burning.


From my understanding, Virginia vs Black upheld that cross-burning was not protected under the First Amendment.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: June 30, 2006, 08:16:26 AM »

The First Amendment protects cross burning as well as flag burning.


From my understanding, Virginia vs Black upheld that cross-burning was not protected under the First Amendment.

Do we need a Cross Protection Amendment too? Tongue
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: June 30, 2006, 08:18:13 AM »

Do we need a Cross Protection Amendment too? Tongue

No, because the court realized that "freedom of speech" is not a blanket right in this case (a moment of clarity for them).  And like I said before, if the court wants to go back and repeal their flawed ruling, we won't need a Flag Protection Amendment either.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: June 30, 2006, 08:19:31 AM »

Do we need a Cross Protection Amendment too? Tongue

No, because the court realized that "freedom of speech" is not a blanket right in this case (a moment of clarity for them).  And like I said before, if the court wants to go back and repeal their flawed ruling, we won't need a Flag Protection Amendment either.

So if the Court reversed its ruling saying that cross burning is not free speech, a Cross Protection Amendment would be necessary?
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: June 30, 2006, 08:21:56 AM »

The First Amendment protects cross burning as well as flag burning.


From my understanding, Virginia vs Black upheld that cross-burning was not protected under the First Amendment.

I believe that would only apply when cross-burning is used as a method of intimidation. If some atheist were to burn a cross out of simple protest of religion with no intent to intimidate, it would probably be protected.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: June 30, 2006, 08:23:48 AM »

Do we need a Cross Protection Amendment too? Tongue

No, because the court realized that "freedom of speech" is not a blanket right in this case (a moment of clarity for them).  And like I said before, if the court wants to go back and repeal their flawed ruling, we won't need a Flag Protection Amendment either.

So if the Court reversed its ruling saying that cross burning is not free speech, a Cross Protection Amendment would be necessary?

First, that ruling would be challenged on the ground that hate speech as already been ruled as not being protected, so you would have at least one more court case on the issue.  If the Court continues to rule against it, then I would support a Hate Speech Amendment.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: June 30, 2006, 09:35:40 AM »

I would support a Hate Speech Amendment.

Eww.

Also, this is a year old, but it's still relevant.  I was looking for info on Bennett's stance on flag burning and why he's always opposed the amendment.

http://bennett.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=240121

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: June 30, 2006, 09:39:30 AM »

And here's McConnell's take on it.  Another common sense view on the issue, naturally.  It's horrifying that 66 senators actually voted in favor of this amendment.

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=257826&start=1

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: June 30, 2006, 10:55:12 AM »

McConnell actually really has his head on straight on this issue. Odd.
Logged
Conan
conan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,140


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: June 30, 2006, 02:15:33 PM »

Whats always been great about America is that in a situation with flag burning, while we might not do it ourselves and dont appreciate it when others do, we can always preserve our right to do so. I always say i wont do that but i preserve my right to be able to. I always like being able to say that.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: June 30, 2006, 02:58:00 PM »


flag as national symbol:  Flags are the international symbols for each country.  That is why flags are displayed behind national leaders in international meetings rather than pictures of the various nations capitals.

So you are saying that International Recongnition dictates to our country what symbols should be important to us?  And that we should constitutionalize international recongnition?  Sounds to me like you are not too far off from quoting Scottish law at the moment.

Should the people of Tibet, or Tiawan care that there flag is not internationally recongnized?  For that matter, should we make it illegal to burn flags of other countries, because they are internationally recongnized?

Personally, I don't see what international recongnition has to do with this debate at all.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh great... "What constitutes an American flag to be determined".  That makes me so much more confident that this won't be abused.

Anyway, as I am sure you are well aware, Federal Code on the American flag is not static.  It changes all the time.  Used to be, all official flags were to be made out of linen.  In fact, people were selling flags made out of synthetic materials for years before those were acctually considered American flags.  So, what exactly is stopping a group of over-active fascists from changing Federal Code to include any and all representations?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is that there are thousands of ways to disrespect that flag, and one ammendment cannot cover all of them.  So are we gonna let Sheriff Bubba determine what is desecration?  How do we gaudge if certain acts of desecration are intentional of not?  Do you seriously not see how this all can cause problems?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many people consider hanging the flag upside-down to be a form of desecration, as it is generally, but not always, a very anti-American statement.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or the more likely explaination is that they are either stupid or cowards.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: June 30, 2006, 03:41:15 PM »

From my understanding, Virginia vs Black upheld that cross-burning was not protected under the First Amendment.
In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held that cross-burning with the intent to intimidate could be outlawed. Merely burning a cross, say, in one's backyard, without intimidating anyone, cannot be prohibited.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: June 30, 2006, 03:43:47 PM »

From my understanding, Virginia vs Black upheld that cross-burning was not protected under the First Amendment.
In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held that cross-burning with the intent to intimidate could be outlawed. Merely burning a cross, say, in one's backyard, without intimidating anyone, cannot be prohibited.

What if they had a black neighbor? Would the burning cross have to be out of sight for it to not be intimidation? If I saw my neighbor burning a cross in his yard I'd get a little nervous and probably call the police since it violates the city burn ordanance.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: June 30, 2006, 07:01:35 PM »

Unpatriotic:  Maybe, maybe not.  Maybe they are for once using their heads and ignoring partisanship to do what's right.

Do you find it a coincidence that this flag protection circus was brought up right after another attempt at banning gay marriage, which was near universally acknowledged as a ploy for Republicans to hold on to Congress this year?  If anyone was ignoring partisanship and using their heads, it was the Republicans who voted against.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: June 30, 2006, 07:20:38 PM »

Well, it's an election year ploy, but at least we could be honest and say it is. Orrin Hatch may deny it, but he's old an senile anyway, lol.

Seriously, it is simply that. An election year ploy by Republicans who are jockeying for position.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: June 30, 2006, 08:35:00 PM »

Unpatriotic:  Maybe, maybe not.  Maybe they are for once using their heads and ignoring partisanship to do what's right.

Do you find it a coincidence that this flag protection circus was brought up right after another attempt at banning gay marriage, which was near universally acknowledged as a ploy for Republicans to hold on to Congress this year?  If anyone was ignoring partisanship and using their heads, it was the Republicans who voted against.

The amendment was brought to the Congress at the beginning of 2005 and had to go through the committees before coming to the floor.  They cleared committees earlier this year and scheduled to come to the floor on Flag Day since it was deemed a symbollic date.  The fact that it occurred before or after some debate on another issue is coincidental.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2006, 06:34:14 PM »

They cleared committees earlier this year and scheduled to come to the floor on Flag Day since it was deemed a symbollic date.

Exactly my point.  It was scheduled to come to the floor when patriotism is high and when people will remember who voted against this amendment in November - in other words, yet another election ploy.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: July 01, 2006, 06:38:54 PM »

They cleared committees earlier this year and scheduled to come to the floor on Flag Day since it was deemed a symbollic date.

Exactly my point.  It was scheduled to come to the floor when patriotism is high and when people will remember who voted against this amendment in November - in other words, yet another election ploy.

No, your point was that it was set to follow the gay marriage ban, and it was not an election year ploy.  If it had cleared committee last year, it would have been brought up on Flag day last year.  This amendment process has been going on for over a decade.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: July 01, 2006, 06:54:15 PM »

No, your point was that it was set to follow the gay marriage ban, and it was not an election year ploy.  If it had cleared committee last year, it would have been brought up on Flag day last year.  This amendment process has been going on for over a decade.

Please re-read what I said: "Do you find it a coincidence that this flag protection circus was brought up right after another attempt at banning gay marriage, which was near universally acknowledged as a ploy for Republicans to hold on to Congress this year?  If anyone was ignoring partisanship and using their heads, it was the Republicans who voted against."

In other words, I was saying that Republicans were using one election ploy after another.  Of course the flag burning amendment was scheduled to come up around Flag Day/July 4th.  It wasn't about the symbollism, though.

Given that it this amendment process has been going on for over a decade, as you state, why do you think they took so long for it to allow to be cleared in the committee?  Simple, 2006 is more convenient than 2005.

And yes, of course the amendment process has been going on for a decade.  It's a proven patriotism mustering tactic and it's always worked.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 12 queries.